obvious; but they also possess some advantages. They are as follows; viz., That all money paid on account of a sailor in a foreign or colonial port, under articles which have been signed in this country or elsewhere than in the country in which he is discharged, should be paid to the officer before whom the discharge is effected; that this officer should retain the wages on account of the seaman whilst he remains in the port; that he should, under the Board of Trade money-order system, remit the man's wages home to his relations, if he desires it, reserving and paying to the sailor such part of them as may be needed for extraordinary expenses in the port; and that the balance should not be paid into the sailor's own hands until he has obtained other satisfactory employment. But as the ship is to be liable for the man's maintenance and expenses home, there will be money to be paid over and above the wages. This money should also be paid to the shipping master, and applied by him in payment of the man's maintenance and expenses home. No part of it should be paid to the sailor himself.* As to the mode of making these payments, the master of the ship should, if possible, make them in money. If, as will often be the case, he is unable to do this, he should pay them by bill on the owner, and the requisite facilities should be given to the Board of Trade, or if the owner resides in the colonies, to the Colonial Government, to recover upon it. If the money so paid to the shipping officer is inadequate, or if in any other respect the obligations of the ship in respect of the seaman are not duly discharged, the ship and the owner should be made liable for all expenses incurred, and the Board of Trade, or if the ship belongs to a colony the Colonial Government, should have every possible means of recovering them.
The wages of the seaman will thus in this case belong to the seaman, and will not in ordinary cases be liable for the expense of his maintenance and return home. That expense will fall on his employer. There may, however, be cases in which the shipowner finds the man good employment, but the man refuses to take it. In this case the man deserves little consideration, and any wages which may be paid on his behalf to the consular or colonial officer should be employed by that officer in the payment of expenses incurred for the seaman and in abatement of the sum which the shipowner would otherwise be liable to pay.
It remains to be considered what the scale of the expenses should be. The expenses of maintenance vary in different ports, and must, I believe, be charged according to the circumstances of each case. The expense of passages taken by the Government for distressed seamen is now managed as follows, under s. 212. of the Act:-The officers charged with the duty of relieving distressed seamen can require any British ship, bound to the place to which the seamen are to be sent, to take one man for every 50 tons burden; and if the crew is already completed, the Board of Trade pay for the passage at a rate of so much a day, the rate being fixed from time to time by the Board. This rate has generally been 1s. a day, which, under the present state of prices, is most inadequate. This should be altered altogether. It is unjust to the shipowner who takes the men home, and it fails to charge a sufficient amount on the shipowner who leaves them behind.
It operates as a burden on the one, whilst to the other it is an inducement to neglect his duty. The sum paid for bringing men home ought to be determined according to the general rates of passages in the trade; and if the men are sent by steamers, which are much faster than sailing ships, the charge ought not to be by the day.
But at whatever rate the passage money is calculated or paid, the amount ought to be charged against the ship which leaves the men behind, and should, as above mentioned, either be paid beforehand, or, if not, be recoverable afterwards.
2. The next case is that of men discharged abroad by mutual consent, without any stipulation to that effect in the original articles.
There is no essential difference between this case and the last, and it may be treated in the same manner.
3. The next case is that of men discharged without their consent, or by reason of the Act of the owners or masters, e.g., by sale of the ship to foreigners, without breaking her up, &c.
In this case the liabilities of the owners should be the same as in the former case, with this important addition, viz., that the men have a right to be compensated for the breach of agreement, by payment of such addition to the sum earned as wages will place them in as good a position as if the contract with them had been duly performed. What this sum should be may be decided, if the parties agree to have it so settled, by the officer before whom the men are discharged; if not, by a competent court; or, perhaps in foreign ports, where there is no such court, by the consul. The compensation thus paid must be treated as wages. In all other respects the liabilities and mode of proceeding should be as in the two former cases.
4. The next case is that of men left abroad on account of sickness.
These cases present great difficulty, first, as between the shipowner and seaman, and, secondly, as between both and the Government. The seaman's sickness is often brought on by his own imprudence and debauchery, and he frequently contracts to serve when labouring under venereal or other disease which he knows or ought to know will incapacitate him for service. On the other hand, the shipowner, by giving bad food, bad lodging, and neglecting proper precautions, is often the cause of the man's illness. If it were possible in each case to prove which party is in fault it would be comparatively easy to lay down rules. But I fear this is impossible. Neither shipping officers nor magistrates will be able to get at the real causes of a seaman's illness.
*There would, in addition to objections of principle, be considerable difficulties of accounts, &c. in carrying out this part of the scheme. And it would probably be necessary to give both the ship's officer and the Board of Trade some latitude in declining to receive the seaman's money when it is unnecessary so to do.
N. L.
Page 7
221
6
obvious; but they also possess some advantages. They are as follow; viz., That all money paid on account of a sailor in a foreign or colonial port, under articles which have been signed in this country or elsewhere than in the country in which he is discharged, should be paid to the officer before whom the discharge is effected; that this officer should retain the wages on account of the sea- man whilst he remains in the port; that he should, under the Board of Trade money-order system, remit the man's wages home to his relations, if he desires it, reserving and paying to the sailor such part of them as may be needed for extraordinary expenses in the port; and that the balance should not be paid into the sailor's own hands until he has obtained other satis- factory employment. But as the ship is to be liable for the man's maintenance and expenses home, there will be money to be paid over and above the wages. This money should also be paid to the shipping master, and applied by him in payment of the man's maintenance and expenses home. No part of it should be paid to the sailor himself.* As to the mode of making these payments, the master of the ship should, if possible, make them in money. If, as will often be the case, he is unable to do this, he should pay them by bill on the owner, and the requisite facilities should be given to the Board of Trade, or if the owner resides in the colonies, to the Colonial Government, to recover upon it. If the money so paid to the shipping officer is inadequate, or if in any other respect the obliga- tions of the ship in respect of the seaman are not duly discharged, the ship and the owner should be made liable for all expenses incurred, and the Board of Trade, or if the ship belongs to a colony the Colonial Government, should have every possible means of recovering them.
The wages of the seaman will thus in this case belong to the seaman, and will not in ordinary cases be liable for the expense of his maintenance and return home. That expense will fall on his em- ployer. There may, however, be cases in which the shipowner finds the man good employment, but the man refuses to take it. In this case the man de- serves little consideration, and any wages which may be paid on his behalf to the consular or colonial officer should be employed by that officer in the payment of expenses incurred for the seaman and in abatement of the sum which the shipowner would otherwise be liable to pay.
It remains to be considered what the scale of the
expenses should be. The expenses of maintenance
vary
in different ports, and must, I believe, be charged according to the circumstances of each case. The expense of passages taken by the Government for distressed seamen is now managed as follows, under s. 212. of the Act:-The officers charged with the duty of relieving distressed seamen can require any British ship, bound to the place to which the scamen
are
*There would, in addition to objections of principle, be considerable difficul- ties of accounts, &c. in carrying out this part of the scheme. And it would probably be necessary to give both the ship's officer and the Board of Trade some latitude in declining to receive the seaman's money when it is unneces sary so to de.
N. L.
7
to be sent, to take one man for every 50 tons burden; and if the crew is already completed, the Board of Trade pay
for the passage at a rate of so much a day, the rate being fixed from time to time by the Board. This rate has generally been Is. a day, which, under the present state of prices, is most inadequate. This should be altered altogether. It is unjust to the shipowner who takes the men home, and it fails to charge a sufficient amount on the shipowner who leaves them behind.
It operates
as a burden on the one, whilst to the other it is an inducement to neglect his duty. The sum paid for bringing men home ought to be determined according to the general rates of passages in the trade; and if the men are sent by steamers, which are much faster than sailing ships, the charge ought not to be by the day.
But at whatever rate the passage money is calcu lated or paid, the amount ought to be charged against the ship which leaves the men behind, and should, as above mentioned, either be paid before- hand, or, if not, be recoverable afterwards.
2. The next case is that of men discharged abroad Case of
charged
by mutual consent, without any stipulation to that seamen dis- effect in the original articles.
abroad by
There is no essential difference between this case mutual con- and the last, and it may be treated in the same sent.
manner.
3. The next case is that of men discharged without Case of sea- their consent, or by reason of the Act of the owners men dia- or masters, eg., by sale of the ship to foreigners, without charged breaking her up, &c.
as
their consent
In this case the liabilities of the owners should be by act of the same as in the former case, with this important owner. addition, viz., that the men have a right to be com- pensated for the breach of agreement, by payment of such addition to the sum earned as wages will place them in as good a position as if the con- tract with them had been duly performed. What this sum should be may be decided, if the parties agree to have it so settled, by the officer before whom the men are discharged; if not, by a competent court; or, perhaps in foreign ports, where there is no such court, by the consul. The compensation thus paid must be treated as wages. In all other respects the liabilities and mode of proceeding should be as in the two former cases.
of sickness.
4. The next case is that of men left abroad on Case of men account of sickness.
discharged These cases present great difficulty, first, as on account between the shipowner and seaman, and, secondly, as between both and the Government. The seaman's sickness is often brought on by his own imprudence and debauchery, and he frequently con- tracts to serve when labouring under venereal or other discase which he knows or ought to know will incapacitate him for service. On the other hand, the shipowner, by giving bad food, bad lodging, and neglecting proper precautions, is often the cause of the man's illness. If it were possible in each case to prove which party is in fault it would be compara- tively easy to lay down rules. But I fear this is impossible. Neither shipping officers nor magis- trates will be able to get at the real causes of a seaman's illness.
221
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.